named Tatiana Tarasoff‚ shortly after she wanted to just be friends with him‚ somewhat rejecting him romantically. After several sessions‚ Poddar threatened to kill Tarasoff.. After hearing this‚ Dr. Moore discussed the case with the police stating that Poddar was unstable and potentially very dangerous‚ and wanted him committed to a facility. The police took him into custody‚ but shortly released him stating that he appeared completely secure and stated he would not go near Tarasoff. At this point
Premium Law Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California Common law
opinion in the Tarasoff case is more ethically sound. The strongest argument against my opinion is that by imposing that a doctor has the duty to breach confidentiality in order to warn a third party of a potential threat can greatly impair treatment. The most important factor in ensuring that a patient receives successful treatment is by establishing a solid physician-patient relationship. This is a consequentialist view because it focuses on the future outcome‚ which in this case is effective
Premium Ethics Patient Morality
confidentiality and the therapist’s ethical obligation to maintain confidential obligation. This allows the therapist to have a therapeutic relationship with the client. Reporting this information is now mandated in most states. Clinical assessment in these cases is also important. Sitting with a client and earning their trust‚ having them confide these feelings is the first step in reporting these thoughts. Some key areas with duty to warn is the importance of clinical assessment‚ the accuracy of the threat
Premium Psychology Psychotherapy Psychiatry
The Tarasoff case is the case that “established a clinician’s duty to warn” (Mottarella‚ n.d.). Prosenjit Poddar‚ a student at University of California Berkeley (UCAL) was a patient of Dr. Lawrence Moore‚ a psychologist a hospital affiliated with UCAL. Poddar was seeking treatment for an emotional breakdown after being romantically rejected by Tatiana Tarasoff. In the course of therapy Poddar related to Dr. Moore his intent to kill Tarasoff that fall. Dr. Moore conferred with his superiors at
Premium Murder Crime Law
of violence to another. This ruling happened because of the Tarasoff Case of 1969‚ in which the court determined the need for therapists to protect the public was more important than protecting patient-therapist confidentiality. (Vitelli 1) The Tarasoff Case is based on the 1969 murder of a University of California Berkley student‚ Tatiana Tarasoff. The perpetrator‚ Prosenjit Poddar was a student at the University who had met Tarasoff at a folk dancing class on campus. While they went on several
Premium Marriage Love Emotion
07-22-09 Tarasoff v. Regents 17 Cal 3d 425 Facts: On October 27‚ 1969‚ Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Plaintiffs‚ Tatiana’s parents‚ allege that two months earlier Poddar confided his intention to kill Tatiana to Dr. Lawrence Moore‚ a psychologist employed by the Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California at Berkeley. They allege that on Moore’s request‚ the campus police briefly detained Poddar‚ but released him when he appeared rational. They further claim that Dr.
Premium Law Legal terms Pleading
Johnson Luu 12/25/13 Legal Brief Case Case Name: Canadian Odeon Theatres Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and Huck Facts: Michael Huck who is on a wheelchair was denied from Odeon theatre that he cannot sit where he wants to sit due to the fact that he is on a wheelchair. He was discriminated by the movie theatres because the only place he can watch the movie is in the first row sits and he was also too close to the screen which interfered with his view and his enjoyment
Premium Disability Wheelchair Law
Case Brief LAW/531 October 26‚ 2011 Facts In the case Zehmer v. Lucy‚ Zehmer created an agreement that Lucy would sell his farm for 50‚000 dollars. While at the bar drinking Zehmer had his wife sign the contract. Lucy tried to close the deal with a five dollar deposit and Zehmer refused it stating the contract was a joke. Lucy is suing Zehmer for breach of contract. Issues Is the contract between Zehmer and Lucy valid
Premium Contract
CASE BRIEF Title of Case: Stoneridge Investment Partners‚ LLC‚ Petitioner v. Scientific-Atlanta‚ Inc.‚ et al. 128 S. Ct. 761 (2008) Facts: The plaintiff‚ Stoneridge Investment Partners‚ LLC‚ presented a securities fraud class action against the defendant‚ Charter Communications’ vendors‚ Scientific-Atlanta. Charter communications is a publicly traded cable company that services millions of customers throughout America. Charter contracts with vendors for equipment that is used for their company
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Appeal
Case Brief Citation: New World Communications of Tampa‚ Inc.‚ d/b/a WTVT-TV v. Jane Akre February 14‚ 2003. Denied February 25‚ 2004. 866 So. 2d 1231 District Court of Appeal of Florida‚ Second District. Facts: In 1998‚ investigative reporting team‚ Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson‚ brought suit against their employer WVTV‚ a subsidiary of Fox TV‚ under violation of Florida’s whistle-blower statutes. They argued that the station had terminated their employment under
Premium Law Appeal United States